Earlier this year the chief executive of the Council, Tony Reeves, told staff that levels of absenteeism were “alarming” and needed to “radically improve”.
This newspaper applauded that stance, and also the union Unison for its realistic and constructive approach to this issue.
But highlighting a problem and dealing with it are not the same things at all, so have improvements been made since then?
The signs are encouraging.
The Council’s target for March, 2010, is an average of 11.5 days lost per member of staff due to sickness.
There is no doubt that this figure is still way too high, but it would represent a significant improvement on the previous figure of more than 12.5 days.
However, the latest forecast is an even-healthier 10.5 days.
There is no room for complacency, though, as that figure would still leave a lot of scope for further improvement.
And the situation could, of course, change, with winter – when sickness is always higher – waiting in the wings.
It must also be remembered that some departments have significantly higher absenteeism rates – one even reaching 20 days per year – which are of great concern.
Even so, perhaps there may finally be an effective and fair system in place to tackle both short and long-term absenteeism – something that would be in the best interests of the Council, its workforce and, importantly, the public who foot the bill.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article